Sellers.

llater,

llamas

Heya Snoopy... About that guy'sbrilliance with money...

Hooray! We get to sue Disney and you will pay higher prices because we're idiots who don't read signs and Darwinize our children!

I've been meaning to ask you: Do you admire him enough to make campaign contributions of your own money?

No?

That's interesting.

Existential Threat.

A friend of mine (whom I will call Fred for the very good reason that that's his name) and I were responding to a tweet made by devout conspiracy theorist Paul Joseph Watson (Twitter handle: PrisonPlanet), claiming that Donald Trump has been in the public eye for over 30 years and has never once been accused of racism until he ran against Democrats. That, of course, is palpable tripe. Even Fred (who is English, not American) knew better than that. As we were discussing this and responding to this asinine meme, Fred asked me to write an article for his site, Unsafespeech.com, and if he liked it, he would publish it. Working feverishly, I cranked out a rather lengthy narrative (11 pages, single-spaced) of Trump's public life and the accusations of racism that have plagued him throughout his public life, indeed precipitated his entrance into it.

While Fred praised the article, in a perfect miracle of bad timing, the CEO of the webmaster that hosted Unsafespeech.com decided to close it down. I would have thought, "This was the most craven rejection letter I'd ever received," but I did check out Unsafespeech before it was closed down and saw it was a thriving, well-organized site, and now it is indeed no more.

Fred felt very badly for me. And I also felt very badly for him. He had put a lot of work into his articles and had attracted a decent following. So, he decided to help me find a new place to publish it and he put me in contact with the NOTAnetwork.org (NOTA = None Of The Above).

I submitted my article to Sam, and he liked it. Although when he gave it back to me, he said it was too long and he did was he called "editing to it. (He excised over half of it; Sam, being English, has the English trademark of understatement.)

He explained my article was about two things: 1) Trump's history of racism, and 2) Trump's abject stupidity in involving himself with such a pathetic mess as the birther movement.

So he excised all the birther stuff, but he also offered to publish the excised portions as a companion piece.

I wasn't happy with this at all, but I did as he asked, grateful, at least that the other half of my article would be published.

So, I split my article in two, which wasn't easy, as I was trying very hard not to repeat myself between the two articles, and my finished product is now finally on NOTAnetwork.org.

For those of us, like Conan, who engaged me in a recent discussion regarding Trump's history of being accused of racism, you'll recognize some of my article. I didn't need to do much writing in that discussion; most of it was already written; I was plagiarizing myself.

NOTAnetwork normally restricts its discussion to British topics, as the site's owner's Olly and Sam, are English. But there is also a wealth of anti-Trump articles on that site.

I would ordinarily not include this on Amy's blog, but Amy did once say, that while she loathes fly-by-nights who promote their own blogs on her site, established posse members like myself can do so.

The aforementioned companion piece.

They're BAAAAAAAAAACK!

http://www.sciencealert.com/a-mysterious-object-just-made-a-dent-in-one-of-saturn-s-rings

I'm not saying it's aliens, but it's aliens. On the bright side, it isn't Aliens. Just drunk, teenaged aliens tooling around in dad's battle cruiser.

Chicago reporter tries to buy evil black assault rifle, finds out he can't

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/he_shoots_he_misses/#293403

Seems he forgot about certain details of his personal life that would raise concerns, and the dealer cancelled the sale.

"That, of course, is palpable tripe."

Are we claiming to know something based on mass media? Consider.

From that link: "Mexico is not a race." No, it's not. Neither is Islam, and 8 USC 1182 is real.

Boy, I'm sure glad we have a choice nowadays, instead of choosing between pale white boys from Yale. Aren't you?

It's like the housing bubble, but bigger:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/06/20/china-trying-to-keep-its-venezuelan-pound-of-flesh/

Can you foreclose on an entire country? this harkens back to the Monroe Doctrine.

Well, no one was talking about Mexico in the article I wrote. (Mexico is a country, by the way. No one in their right mind assumes that Mexico is a race. Mexican is another matter, though it's an ethnicity, not a race.) I also left out the story in which Donald Trump took some heat for his comments about Native Americans (who are also not a race).

I talked about Trump's repeated brushes with black people, who are a race.

And now for a break from the endless election cycle for some uplifting news.

Yeah, that makes me feel better.

IRADA wrote:

'Chicago reporter tries to buy evil black assault rifle, finds out he can't

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/he_shoots_he_misses/#293403

Seems he forgot about certain details of his personal life that would raise concerns, and the dealer cancelled the sale.'

It appears that the story is a little more complex than the account given.

Reporter goes to buy EBAR, selects rifle, pays dealer. Sale is contingent on completion of the federally-mandated background check. You know - that's the federally-mandated background check that all dealers must perform before selling any firearm to anyone - the mandatory background check that the media never writes about when describing how 'easy' it is to buy a firearm. This is normally an instant, while-you-wait process.

That tells me right away that, based on his form 4473 answers, he did not get an immediate approval from the Federal phone-in background check system. Most people get an approval number right over the phone with no delay, but the Feds have up to 3 days to provide it. So the dealer called for a background check and approval of the sale and the Feds invoked their 3-day delay. So the dealer said to him 'you have to wait for the Feds to approve the sale'.

A few hours later, the Feds call back and deny the sale. They don't give a reason, in fact, ITIRIS that they are prohibited from giving the reasons to the dealer - it's a straight yes/no.

Dealer calls reporter, tells him the sale is denied and his money is refunded.

Now the reporter claims that the dealer decided not to sell him the weapon because the dealer didn't like him. I think that's boloney - why would a dealer refuse a sale? The tell-tale part is the delay - the dealer has no basis on which to delay the sale while he checks out whether he, the dealer, likes the customer or not. The only reason for the delay would be if there was a delay in the Federal background-check system.

Reporter demands to know why the sale is denied. Dealer's employee is claimed to have said 'We don't have to tell you why'. I think that is likely also boloney. I think she told him 'You did not pass the background check, and they don't tell us the reason why'.

Reporter then goes off on employee, claiming that the dealer has decided not to sell to him because he doesn't like him - for whatever reason. Reporter threatens to write about the whole affair and accuse the dealer of bias, mopery and aggravated sescencion.

Dealer THEN decides to figure out who this blowhard is, and a single Google search shows his past history of alcohol abuse and domestic violence - both grounds for denying the sale of a firearm. Reporter is so proud of being a drunk and a wife-beater that he actually wrote a book about it - how transgressive is that! What a cool guy he must be! And then, in a pre-emptive strike, the dealer tweets this information.

He's an idiot who can't deal with the fact that he - HE! - is barred from owning firearms. Surely only drunks and criminals are barred from owning firearms! He's a JOURNALIST! How DARE they deny him!

he doesn't want to deal with the fact that his past history of drunkenness and domestic violence is what caused him to be barred. So he blames the dealer.

Dipsh*t.

llater,

llamas

IRADA wrote:

'Chicago reporter tries to buy evil black assault rifle, finds out he can't

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/he_shoots_he_misses/#293403

Seems he forgot about certain details of his personal life that would raise concerns, and the dealer cancelled the sale.'

It appears that the story is a little more complex than the account given.

Reporter goes to buy EBAR, selects rifle, pays dealer. Sale is contingent on completion of the federally-mandated background check. You know - that's the federally-mandated background check that all dealers must perform before selling any firearm to anyone - the mandatory background check that the media never writes about when describing how 'easy' it is to buy a firearm. This is normally an instant, while-you-wait process.

That tells me right away that, based on his form 4473 answers, he did not get an immediate approval from the Federal phone-in background check system. Most people get an approval number right over the phone with no delay, but the Feds have up to 3 days to provide it. So the dealer called for a background check and approval of the sale and the Feds invoked their 3-day delay. So the dealer said to him 'you have to wait for the Feds to approve the sale'.

A few hours later, the Feds call back and deny the sale. They don't give a reason, in fact, ITIRIS that they are prohibited from giving the reasons to the dealer - it's a straight yes/no.

Dealer calls reporter, tells him the sale is denied and his money is refunded.

Now the reporter claims that the dealer decided not to sell him the weapon because the dealer didn't like him. I think that's boloney - why would a dealer refuse a sale? The tell-tale part is the delay - the dealer has no basis on which to delay the sale while he checks out whether he, the dealer, likes the customer or not. The only reason for the delay would be if there was a delay in the Federal background-check system.

Reporter demands to know why the sale is denied. Dealer's employee is claimed to have said 'We don't have to tell you why'. I think that is likely also boloney. I think she told him 'You did not pass the background check, and they don't tell us the reason why'.

Reporter then goes off on employee, claiming that the dealer has decided not to sell to him because he doesn't like him - for whatever reason. Reporter threatens to write about the whole affair and accuse the dealer of bias, mopery and aggravated sescencion.

Dealer THEN decides to figure out who this blowhard is, and a single Google search shows his past history of alcohol abuse and domestic violence - both grounds for denying the sale of a firearm. Reporter is so proud of being a drunk and a wife-beater that he actually wrote a book about it - how transgressive is that! What a cool guy he must be! And then, in a pre-emptive strike, the dealer tweets this information.

He's an idiot who can't deal with the fact that he - HE! - is barred from owning firearms. Surely only drunks and criminals are barred from owning firearms! He's a JOURNALIST! How DARE they deny him!

He doesn't want to deal with the fact that his past history of drunkenness and domestic violence is what caused him to be barred. So he blames the dealer.

Dipsh*t.

llater,

llamas

IRADA wrote:

'Chicago reporter tries to buy evil black assault rifle, finds out he can't

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/he_shoots_he_misses/#293403

Seems he forgot about certain details of his personal life that would raise concerns, and the dealer cancelled the sale.'

It appears that the story is a little more complex than the account given.

Reporter goes to buy EBAR, selects rifle, pays dealer. Sale is contingent on completion of the federally-mandated background check. You know - that's the federally-mandated background check that all dealers must perform before selling any firearm to anyone - the mandatory background check that the media never writes about when describing how 'easy' it is to buy a firearm. This is normally an instant, while-you-wait process.

That tells me right away that, based on his form 4473 answers, he did not get an immediate approval from the Federal phone-in background check system. Most people get an approval number right over the phone with no delay, but the Feds have up to 3 days to provide it. So the dealer called for a background check and approval of the sale and the Feds invoked their 3-day delay. So the dealer said to him 'you have to wait for the Feds to approve the sale'.

A few hours later, the Feds call back and deny the sale. They don't give a reason, in fact, ITIRIS that they are prohibited from giving the reasons to the dealer - it's a straight yes/no.

Dealer calls reporter, tells him the sale is denied and his money is refunded.

Now the reporter claims that the dealer decided not to sell him the weapon because the dealer didn't like him. I think that's boloney - why would a dealer refuse a sale? The tell-tale part is the delay - the dealer has no basis on which to delay the sale while he checks out whether he, the dealer, likes the customer or not. The only reason for the delay would be if there was a delay in the Federal background-check system.

Reporter demands to know why the sale is denied. Dealer's employee is claimed to have said 'We don't have to tell you why'. I think that is likely also boloney. I think she told him 'You did not pass the background check, and they don't tell us the reason why'.

Reporter then goes off on employee, claiming that the dealer has decided not to sell to him because he doesn't like him - for whatever reason. Reporter threatens to write about the whole affair and accuse the dealer of bias, mopery and aggravated sescencion.

Dealer THEN decides to figure out who this blowhard is, and a single Google search shows his past history of alcohol abuse and domestic violence - both grounds for denying the sale of a firearm. Reporter is so proud of being a drunk and a wife-beater that he actually wrote a book about it - how transgressive is that! What a cool guy he must be! And then, in a pre-emptive strike, the dealer tweets this information.

He's an idiot who can't deal with the fact that he - HE! - is barred from owning firearms. Surely only drunks and criminals are barred from owning firearms! He's a JOURNALIST! How DARE they deny him!

He doesn't want to deal with the fact that his past history of drunkenness and domestic violence is what caused him to be barred. So he blames the dealer.

Dipsh*t.

llater,

llamas

Damn, llamas, stutter much?

"I talked about Trump's repeated brushes with black people, who are a race."

Of course you did. The "Mexico" angle is because people have accused him of being anti-Hispanic because of the border issue.

I'd post pictures of Trump with Jesse, Al, Andrew Young, etc., but somebody'd probably say they aren't black. They sure don't have a problem being around his money.

Question: is it racist to claim that blacks need Federal aid at all times?

Question: is it racist to falsely "identify" with blacks, as Hillary has tried?

I also wonder if anything Mr. Trump has said is congruent with comments in this post.

Fun fact: at over 42 million in the USA, the black population is over 105 times the number of slaves brought to North America. It must be a truly horrible place to live nowadays.

With immigrants like this:

https://twitter.com/TomBevanRCP/status/745234107425226752

who needs to worry about ISIS sleeper agents?

Ah, the things you can find out if you're paying attention:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a21382/how-kodak-accidentally-discovered-radioactive-fallout/

I see the Corps has decided to stick with quality over quantity:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/21/new-marine-corps-physical-standards-spell-bad-news-for-women-in-combat-directive/

"Question: is it racist to claim that blacks need Federal aid at all times?"

Answer: When everything is racist, nothing is.

(Article is from last year, but worth repeating.)

Article on reproducibility in science:

http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970

Executive summary: not as much as one would like to see. In fact, it's pretty bad.

That 105 times figure is interesting, Rad. Might prove useful the next time a black person is claimed he's owed slave reparations.

Take the amount that each slave was owed, without adjusting for inflation, then divide by 105.

Snoooopeeee

Are you going to make campaign contributions to Donald Trump?


Because he needs it.

...If you want him to be President of the United States, I mean.


So beeshur 'n lettisnoe.

Give it a few seconds to let the whole string of tweets load onto your screen: This is what it's like when the Snoopys of the world are served their own testicles on toast points.

Shrillary, the average citizen:

http://thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/dnc-researched-clinton-speeches-travel-records-621985

Oh, Hillary, you lying sack of crap.

TPP, or NAFTA on steroids, is going to be the globalists' final blow to American trade power.

Madame Secretary spoke in favor of it 45 times, but now she's against it.

Well, at least until January.

https://www.facebook.com/HuffingtonPost/videos/10153996358896130/

So, voluntarily choosing not to eat*, is the exact same thing as living under a despotic tyrannical regime that engages in an annual ritualized and televised human sacrifice to keep the population simultaneously cowed and entertained?

*Long term fasting induces a mild delerium, which is a great technique when brain washing people. Its why missionaries for various christian faiths fast as well, or put in situations where they can not afford to eat well.

Think back on the stories surrounding the birth and pivotal moments in the creation of many religions.

Moses, Mohammed, Jesus, all their encounters with god/demons/angles came about after they'd been wandering in the heat for days with little food or water

Same with Budda